Re: [Netconf] WG Last Call Comments ondraft-ietf-netconf-reverse-ssh-03.txt

Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Juergen,
> 
> >I tend to agree with Tom that 'reverse SSH' is potentially misleading

+1

I think a phrase like "call home for SSH" describes it better.

> >or that we should pick a consistent terminology for both the TLS and
> >the SSH transports. (I do not see that merging reverse SSH into RFC
> >4742 fixes the terminology split we have.)
> 
> What terminology change do you propose?  I can only think that adding the
> word "reverse" into 5539-bis would be simpler than removing "reverse" from
> the reverse-ssh draft...
> 
> 
> 
> >And to make things a bit more confusing, we use 'inbound' and
> >'outbound' in the netconf server configuration data model. ;-)
> 
> These are in feature statements only.

The terms should still be correct. "outbound-ssh" sounds like a normal
SSH client, but that is not the case here.

/martin

  For instance:
> 
>   feature ssh {
>        description
>         "A server implements this feature if it supports NETCONF
>          over Secure Shell (SSH).";
>        reference
>         "RFC 6242: Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure Shell (SSH)";
>      }
> 
>      feature inbound-ssh {
>        description
>         "The inbound-ssh feature indicates that the server can
>          open a port to listen for incoming client connections.";
>      }
> 
>      feature outbound-ssh {
>        description
>         "The outbound-ssh feature indicates that the server can
>          connect to a client.";
>        reference
>         "RFC XXXX: Reverse SSH for NETCONF Call Home";
>      }
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Kent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> 